af.blackmilkmag.com
Nuwe resepte

'N Insider se blik op die Ben & Jerry's -fabriek

'N Insider se blik op die Ben & Jerry's -fabriek


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Ons neem u op 'n toer agter die skerms deur die Ben & Jerry-fabriek

Vars pints gaan na die Spiral Hardener. As dit in hierdie toestand geëet word, lyk die roomys soos 'n superdikte melkskommel.

Dit is ongelooflik maklik en super ingewikkeld om roomys te maak. Voeg jy net melk by 'n vrieskas en draai dit op, reg? Wel, blykbaar nie, veral as dit op industriële skaal vervaardig word. Die beste voorbeeld: Ben & Jerry's, wat daagliks toere deur die produksiefasiliteit in Waterbury, Vt., Aanbied.

Klik hier vir 'n insider se kyk na die skyfievertoning van Ben & Jerry's Factory

Ons het die geleentheid gehad om 'n begeleide toer deur hul produksieproses te neem, en terwyl foto's geneem word, is die span vriendelik genoeg om 'n paar foto's van die fabrieksvloer oor te stuur vir 'n seldsame, agter-die-skerms kyk na die proses.

Nadat besoekers 'n kort film oor die geskiedenis van die bekende roomysmaatskappy gekyk het, bring die toergids hulle na 'n brug wat uitkyk oor die produksiekamer, wat eintlik kleiner is as wat 'n mens sou dink. Omdat alles so outomaties is, verg dit slegs 'n paar werkers om te alle tye in die kamer self te wees. Elke masjien is genommer, wat dit maklik maak om te weet waarna u kyk terwyl die gids u deur die proses lei (anders sou u raaiskoot net so goed wees as enigiemand anders). Dit is 'n ingewikkelde prosedure wat baie tenks, pype, vrieskaste en kwaliteitskontrole behels, maar daar is 'n vrolike, Willy Wonka-agtige atmosfeer, wat ongetwyfeld gehelp word deur die voortdurende opgewekte gedruis van musiek uit die 60's.

Die fabrieksvloer is amper te veel om in te neem, terwyl u op die brug staan ​​en alles uitkyk. Maar as u aandag gee aan die gids, is dit alles sinvol. Hier is vir die eerste keer 'n stap-vir-stap gids vir die produksieproses van Ben & Jerry, kompleet met foto's van hul fabriek in Waterbury, Vt.

Dan Myers is die Eat/Dine Editor by The Daily Meal. Volg hom op Twitter @sirmyers.


Stigting Redigeer

Ben Cohen en Jerry Greenfield was kinderjare vriende uit Merrick, New York. [3] Hoewel Greenfield die universiteit voltooi het, kon hy nie die mediese skool betree nie. Cohen het die skool verlaat. [4] In 1977 voltooi Cohen en Greenfield 'n korrespondensiekursus oor roomysvervaardiging van Pennsylvania State University se roomys. Cohen het ernstige anosmie, 'n gebrek aan reuk- of smaakgevoel, en vertrou dus op 'mondgevoel' en tekstuur om 'n verskeidenheid in sy dieet te bied. Dit het daartoe gelei dat die maatskappy se handelsmerkblokkies met hul roomys gemeng is. [4] Op 5 Mei 1978, met 'n belegging van $ 12,000 [4] (gelykstaande aan $ 48,000 in 2020), het die twee sakevennote 'n roomys in 'n opgeknapte vulstasie in die sentrum van Burlington, Vermont, geopen. In 1979 vier hulle hul herdenking deur die eerste "gratis keëldag" te hou, nou 'n jaarlikse geleentheid in elke Ben & amp Jerry -winkel. [4]

In 1980 het hulle ruimte gehuur in 'n ou spoel- en spoelmeule in South Champlainstraat in Burlington en hul roomys in pint begin verpak. In 1981 het die eerste Ben & amp Jerry's -franchise op Route 7 in Shelburne, Vermont, geopen. In 1983 is Ben & amp Jerry's se roomys gebruik om 'die wêreld se grootste roomysbroodjies' in St. Albans, Vermont, te bou. In dieselfde jaar is die koeie op hul kartonne herontwerp deur die plaaslike kunstenaar Woody Jackson. [5]

In 1984 wou Häagen-Dazs die verspreiding van Ben & amp Jerry's in Boston beperk, wat Ben & amp Jerry's moes laat aansoek doen teen die moedermaatskappy, Pillsbury, in sy nou beroemde "What's the Doughboy Afraid Of?" veldtog. [6] In 1987 het Häagen-Dazs weer probeer om eksklusiewe verspreiding af te dwing, en Ben & amp Jerry's het sy tweede regsgeding teen die Pillsbury Company ingedien.

In 1985 is die Ben & amp Jerry's Foundation aan die einde van die jaar gestig met 'n geskenk van Ben & amp Jerry's om gemeenskapsgerigte projekte te finansier. In 1986 het Ben & amp Jerry's sy "Cowmobile" bekendgestel, 'n aangepaste stacaravan wat gebruik word om gratis bolletjies Ben & amp Jerry se roomys te versprei in 'n unieke, landelike "bemarkingsrit"-aangedryf en bedien deur Ben en Jerry self. Die "Cowmobile" het vier maande later tot op die grond afgebrand buite Cleveland, maar daar was geen beserings nie. Ben het gesê dit lyk na 'die grootste gebakte Alaska ter wêreld'. [7] In 1987, as 'n huldeblyk aan die kitaarspeler Jerry Garcia en amp Grateful Dead-aanhangers oral, het Ben & amp Jerry's sy eerste roomys aangebied, vernoem na 'n rocklegende en die beroemdste van waaier-voorgestelde geure, "Cherry Garcia". [8] In 1988 wen die twee mans die titel van Amerikaanse kleinsake -persone van die jaar, toegeken deur die Amerikaanse president Ronald Reagan. [9] Ook daardie jaar is die eerste brownies by Greyston Bakery bestel, wat gelei het tot die ontwikkeling van die gewilde Chocolate Fudge Brownie -geur. [10] In 1992 het Ben & amp Jerry's aangesluit in 'n samewerkingsveldtog met die nasionale nie-winsgewende kinderverdedigingsfonds. Die doel van die veldtog was om kinders se basiese behoeftes bo-aan die nasionale agenda te bring. Meer as 70 000 poskaarte is na die kongres gestuur oor kinders en ander nasionale aangeleenthede. In 1995 het hulle Robert Holland Jr. as uitvoerende hoof aangestel nadat hulle 'Yo! I'm your CEO' gehou het. opstelwedstryd as deel van die soektog. [11] Holland vertrek na 20 maande na filosofiese verskille en word in 1997 vervang deur Perry Odak. [12]

In 1989 het Ben & amp Jerry's hul teenkanting teen die gebruik van rBGH (rekombinante beesgroeihormoon) in al hul produkte onthul. Hierdie geneties gemanipuleerde hormoon word soms aan koeie gegee om die melkproduksie te verhoog, maar Ben & amp Jerry's ondersteun nie hierdie praktyk nie en is ten gunste daarvan om minder chemies intensiewe bestanddele te gebruik vir die veiligheid van verbruikers en die omgewing. [13]

In 1994, Ben & amp; Jerry's: The Inside Scoop, geskryf deur Fred "Chico" Lager, voormalige uitvoerende hoof van Ben & amp; Jerry's Ice Cream, is gepubliseer. Die boek volg die geskiedenis van hoe Ben & amp Jerry's Ice Cream begin het. Die boek fokus op "Hoe twee regte ouens 'n onderneming met 'n sosiale gewete en 'n gevoel vir humor gebou het." [14]

Unilever era Redigeer

In April 2000 verkoop Ben & amp Jerry's die onderneming aan die Anglo-Nederlandse multinasionale voedselreus Unilever. [15] Unilever het gesê dat hy hoop om die tradisie voort te sit om "deel te neem aan hierdie kritieke, wêreldwye ekonomiese en sosiale missies". Alhoewel die name van die stigters nog steeds by die produk aangeheg is, beklee hulle geen raad of bestuursposisie nie en is hulle nie betrokke by die daaglikse bestuur van die onderneming nie. [16]

In 2001 het Ben & amp Jerry's U.S. die oorgang voltooi na 'Eco-Pint' verpakking, waarin alle pintgeure in omgewingsvriendelike ongebleikte karton Eco-Pint-houers verpak is, 'n besluit wat dit later omgekeer het. Die gebruik van bruin-kraft ongebleikte karton was 'n kritieke eerste stap in die rigting van 'n heeltemal biologies afbreekbare pint gemaak sonder bygevoegde chloor. As gevolg van wat hulle beskryf as toenemende uitdagings in aanbod, kwaliteit en koste, het Ben & amp Jerry's in 2006 hul gebruik van die Eco-Pint gestaak en oorgegaan na 'n pinthouer gemaak van 'n gebleikte karton wat volgens hulle makliker beskikbaar was. [17]

Op Aarde -dag in 2005, toe 'n stemming in die Amerikaanse senaat die opening van die Arctic National Wildlife Refuge vir olieboorwerk voorgestel het, het Ben & amp Jerry's 'n protesoptog geloods deur die grootste ooit gebakte Alaska, wat 410 kg geweeg het, te skep en dit voor die Amerikaanse Capitol -gebou geplaas. [18] [19]

In Maart 2009 het "CyClone Dairy" [20] 'n advertensieveldtog en 'n webwerf geloods om sy melkprodukte te bevorder, wat na bewering uitsluitlik van gekloonde koeie kom. [21] Op 1 April 2009 (April Fool's Day) het Ben & amp; Jerry's aangekondig dat dit agter hierdie valse onderneming is. Ben & amp; Jerry's het die tong-in-die-kies-hoax geskep om die bewustheid te verhoog van die toenemende teenwoordigheid van produkte van gekloonde diere in Amerikaanse voedsel [22] en om 'n veldtog vir 'n opsporingstelsel van gekloonde dierprodukte te beywer. [23] Die hoax is op April Fool's Day onthul met die boodskap: "Ons glo dat u die reg moet hê om te kies watter kosse u eet - en nie om gekloonde kos te eet as u dit nie wil hê nie. En dit is hoekom Ben & amp Jerry's glo dat ons 'n nasionale stelsel vir kloonopsporing nodig het, sodat mense en maatskappye kan weet waar hul kos vandaan kom. " [24]

In 2010 word Jostein Solheim, 'n uitvoerende hoof van Unilever uit Noorweë, die nuwe uitvoerende hoof van die onderneming en het dit te sê oor die oorgang: 'My mantra wat ek honderd keer herhaal het sedert ek by Ben & amp Jerry begin het, is:' Change is 'n wonderlike ding, '' het hy gesê. "Die wêreld het dramatiese veranderinge nodig om die maatskaplike en omgewingsuitdagings wat ons in die gesig staar, aan te spreek. Ondernemings onder leiding van waardes kan 'n kritieke rol speel om hierdie positiewe verandering aan te dryf. Ons moet deur die voorbeeld lei en aan die wêreld bewys dat dit die beste manier is Om 'n besigheid te bedryf. Histories was en moet hierdie onderneming 'n pionier bly om voortdurend uit te daag hoe sake 'n krag kan wees vir die goeie en om ongelykhede wat inherent is aan wêreldwye sake aan te spreek. " [25]

In 2013 het Ben & amp Jerry's daartoe verbind om hul produkte GMO-vry te maak ter ondersteuning van verpligte wetgewing oor die etikettering van GMO's. [26]

In 2018 het Matthew McCarthy, voorheen 'n uitvoerende hoof van Unilever, Jostein Solheim vervang en die nuwe uitvoerende hoof van die onderneming geword. "Ons is verheug om Matthew te verwelkom, wat oorvloedige kommersiële ervaring beskik, saam met rotsvaste waardes en 'n moedige visie vir die rol wat ondernemings in die wêreld kan en behoort te speel," sê die voorsitter van Ben & amp Jerry, Anuradha Mittal. . [2]

Ben & amp Jerry's het produksiefasiliteite op die volgende plekke:

Daar is 'n amptelike opname onder die algemene publiek gedoen om die beste Ben en Jerrys -geur uit te vind. Koekedeeg was die wenner met 60% en in die laaste plek was sjokolade -brownie met 8,5%. Die 'Vermonster' is 'n groot roomysbroodjie bedien in 'n 'Vermonster Bucket' in Ben & amp Jerry's 'scoop shops'. Die bestanddele bestaan ​​uit 20 bolletjies roomys, 4 piesangs, 4 lepels warm fudge, 3 sjokoladekoekies, 1 sjokolade -fudge -brownie, 10 lepels okkerneute, 2 lepels elk van elke 4 bolaag en slagroom. Dit bevat 14 000 kalorieë (59 000 kJ) en 500 gram vet. Sedert 2009 is die Vermonster Challenge 'n jaarlikse liefdadigheidsgeleentheid wat deur Ben & amp Jerry's gehou word waarin spanne van vier meeding om 'n Vermonster klaar te maak en 'n jaar lank gratis roomys te wen.

"Chubby Hubby" bestaan ​​uit vanielje -mout -roomys met fudge en grondboontjiebotter, en bevat krakelingstukke bedek met fudge en gevul met grondboontjiebotter. Gedurende die maand September 2009 het Ben en Jerry's, in vennootskap met Freedom to Marry, 'Chubby Hubby' hernoem tot 'Hubby Hubby' ter viering van die wettiging van huwelik van dieselfde geslag in die tuisstaat Vermont van die onderneming. Die karton bevat die beeld van twee mans in smoking wat onder 'n reënboog trou. [30] [31] [32]

Op 13 Maart 2012 kondig Ben & amp Jerry's aan dat dit die naam van een van sy roomys-geure in die Verenigde Koninkryk sal verander ter ondersteuning van gelyke huweliksregte vir paartjies van dieselfde geslag. "O! My! Appeltaart!" sou 'Apple-y Ever After' word, en 'n gay egpaar bo-op 'n troukoek versier met reënboë. [33]

"Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough" is gedurende die somer van 2015 tydelik in die Verenigde State in die Verenigde State in die Verenigde State tydelik hernoem na "I Dough, I Dough". Die opbrengs uit verkope gaan aan die Menseregteveldtog ('n organisasie sonder winsbejag vir LGBT -regte). [34]

Ben Cohen en Jerry Greenfield verskyn op Die Colbert -verslag op 5 Maart 2007 om hul nuwe roomysgeur, "Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream", en Cohen se progressiewe voorspraakgroep TrueMajority, te bevorder.

Die maatskappy het 'n geur, "Yes Pecan!", Vernoem na Barack Obama se oorwinning in die Amerikaanse presidentsverkiesing in 2008. Hulle het in Januarie 2009 besluit om alle opbrengs uit die verkoop van die geur aan die Common Cause Education Fund te skenk. [35]

Op 2 Maart 2011 verskyn Cohen en Greenfield op Laataand met Jimmy Fallon en onthul hul nuwe roomysgeur, "Late Night Snack", waarvan die karton 'n prentjie van Jimmy Fallon bevat. [36]

Op 24 Februarie 2012 het Ben & amp Jerry's 'n nuwe reeks Griekse bevrore yoghurt vrygestel, wat in verskillende geure beskikbaar is: "Strawberry Shortcake", "Blueberry Vanilla Graham", "Raspberry Fudge Chunk", "Banana Peanut Butter", [37] en "Vanilla" (eksklusiewe winkel): [38] Op 12 April 2013 is "Pineapple Passionfruit", "Vanilla Honey Caramel" en "Liz Lemon" by die Griekse jogurtlyn gevoeg. [39] Die Liz Lemon -geur is geïnspireer deur 'n karakter met dieselfde naam wat deur aktrise Tina Fey geskep is as die hoofkarakter op die NBC -televisie -sitkom 30 Rock. [40]

Op 17 Februarie 2015 verskyn Cohen en Greenfield op The Tonight Show met Jimmy Fallon in die hoofrol en onthul hul nuwe roomysgeur, "The Tonight Dough", met al die opbrengs daarvan na die SeriousFun Children's Network wat kampe vir kinders met ernstige siektes ondersteun. [41]

In 2015 het roomys met Charoset -geur betyds vir die Pasga -vakansie algemeen beskikbaar geword. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

In April 2015 het die onderneming bevestig dat hulle aan veganiese opsies werk, nadat hulle die terugvoer van verbruikers gehoor het, gelei deur 'n petisie en 'n PLAAS -organisasie. [48] ​​Begin Februarie 2016 kondig die onderneming 'n nuwe all-vegan-reeks met vier geure aan. Twee hiervan is weergawes van bestaande geure-"Chunky Monkey" en "Chocolate Fudge Brownie"-en twee is heeltemal nuwe veganistiese geure: "Coffee Caramel Fudge" en "Peanut Butter & amp Cookies". [49]

In Februarie 2017 is drie nuwe nie-suiwelgeure bygevoeg: Caramel Almond Bros, Cherry Garcia en Coconut Seven Layer Bar. [50]

In Januarie 2018 het die onderneming twee nuwe nie-suiwelgeure bygevoeg tot sy groeiende reeks veganistiese opsies. Half-gebakte grondboontjiebotter bevat sjokolade en grondboontjiebotter met fudge-brownies en stukkies deeg met grondboontjiebotter. [51] Ben en Jerry se nie-suiwelreeks bevat ook geure soos PB & amp-koekies, Chocolate Fudge Brownie en Caramel Coffee fudge. Onder hul nuutste nie-suiwelgeure is die volgende: sjokolade-karamelgroep, sjokoladekoekie-deeg en sjokolade gesout en gedraai. [52] Ben & amp Jerry's het ook pas nuwe "koekdeegstukkies" vrygestel wat 'n veganistiese opsie vir die nie-suiwelkenner het. [53] Hulle gaan voort om nuwe voorstelle vir nie-suiwelgeure op hul webwerf te neem. [54]

In Oktober 2018 het Ben en Jerry's 'n veldtog van stapel gestuur vir 'n beperkte uitgawe-roomysgeur, wat ook 'n politieke boodskap bevat wat fokus op die verset teen die huidige Amerikaanse regering onder Trump. Die veldtog het die nuwe geur, 'Pecan Resist', bekendgestel en bevat nuwe verpakking wat hul boodskappe adverteer. Die onderneming het $ 25 000 geskenk aan vier organisasies wat hul belange ondersteun vir die vordering met maatskaplike kwessies, insluitend inklusiwiteit, geregtigheid vir mense van kleur, vroue, vlugtelinge, die LGBTQ -gemeenskap en kwessies van klimaatsverandering. [55]

Free Cone Day is 'n jaarlikse geleentheid wat tussen einde Maart en vroeg in Mei gehou word, waarin Ben & amp Jerry se skopwinkels gratis roomysbekers en keëltjies uitdeel. Free Cone Day is die eerste keer gehou op Saterdag, 5 Mei 1979, deur Ben en Jerry as 'n kliënt en waarderingsgeleentheid vir die personeel vir die eerste herdenking van die opening van hul winkel. Sedert 2020 veroorsaak deur COVID-19-pandemie, het dit egter 'n pouse gestaan.

Elke jaar word meer as een miljoen kegels weggegee, wat die advertensie -slagspreuk van die onderneming 'Be One In A Million' veroorsaak. Liefdadigheidsorganisasies is elke jaar gereeld by die winkels en geniet 'n aansienlike sukses van geldinsameling. Dikwels daag plaaslike bekendes by verskillende winkels op om die dag en die liefdadigheidsorganisasies daar te bevorder. [56] Soms is die gebeurtenis geskeduleer om saam te val met Aardedag en soms is vrywilligers byderhand met knipborde en kiesersregistrasievorms om diegene wat wil registreer, te help stem (in die lande waar dit nodig is).

Kommersiële Edit

Die Sentrum vir Wetenskap in die Openbare Belang, 'n verbruikersgroep, het Ben & Jerry's aangemoedig om op te hou om hul roomys as 'heeltemal natuurlik' te noem as gevolg van die gebruik van koringstroop, alkaliese kakao en ander chemies gemodifiseerde bestanddele. [57] In September 2010 het die onderneming ingestem om op te hou om hul roomys en bevrore jogurt as 'heeltemal natuurlik' te bestempel. [58]

In 2011 het [59] Ben & amp; Jerry's 'n geur met die naam Schweddy Balls vrygestel, ter ere van die Saturday Night Live (SNL) skets met dieselfde naam. Dit het protes ontvang van One Million Moms, 'n projek van die konserwatiewe Christelike groep American Family Associated, wat gesê het dat die naam te eksplisiet is vir die winkelrakke. Woordvoerder Monica Cole het aan die media verduidelik: "Ek besef dit kan baie erger wees, maar gaan dit geleidelik erger word as ons nie iets sê nie? Miskien sal hulle twee keer dink voordat hulle 'n ander onvanpaste naam vir ys kry. room. " Die uitdrukking van minagting was egter nie eenparig onder Amerikaanse ouers nie, soos ma Gina Ragusa gesê het Die Huffington Post: "Ons dink net dit is snaaks, dit is alles, en eerlikwaar wil ons almal dit regtig probeer", en voeg by dat sy deurgaans kyk na die beskikbaarheid van die item by haar plaaslike supermark. [60] Akteur Alec Baldwin, wat in die SNL as bakker Pete Schweddy, het die episode van die 37ste seisoen van die program op 24 September 2011 aangebied en op die protesaksies gereageer deur te sê dat 'n nuwe geur genaamd "Go Fudge Yourself" vervaardig is vir diegene wat teen die huldeblyk was. Na die aanvanklike vrystelling van die geur, het Baldwin die media meegedeel dat "danksy Ben & amp Jerry's die goedheid van die Schweddy -gesinsresep my nie sal help nie", aangesien hy vroeër gevrees het dat sy verbintenis met die SNL Die episode sou tot sy dood permanent bly. [61]

Politieke redigering

Na gerugte wat daarop dui dat Ben & amp Jerry's die verdediging van Mumia Abu-Jamal ondersteun-wat in 1982 skuldig bevind is aan die moord op die Philadelphia-polisiebeampte, Daniel Faulkner [62]-het die maatskappy bevestig dat Cohen as privaat burger 'n petisie onderteken het en gevra het dat " die stelsel van Amerikaanse geregtigheid moet ten volle in die saak gevolg word ". [63]

Tussen 2005 en 2008 werk Ben en Jerry saam met die pool ontdekkingsreisiger Marc Cornelissen en die World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) om die Climate Change College te bestuur, 'n inisiatief om jong mense op te lei in kommunikasie en veldtogte rondom klimaatsverandering. [64] [65]

Omstredenheid het in 2006 ontstaan ​​nadat die onderneming 'n geur roomys met die naam "Black and Tan" vrygestel het. Dit het die geur genoem na die alkoholiese drank, wat gemaak word deur sterk met bleek aal te meng, maar die "Black and Tans" staan ​​ook bekend as 'n paramilitêre polisiemag van veterane uit die Eerste Wêreldoorlog wat tydens die Ierse rewolusie gewerf is. Teen die tyd dat die smaak vrygestel is, was die Ierse Republikeinse beweging nog steeds aanstoot geneem deur die historiese assosiasie van die titel. [66]

In 2012 het Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel (VTJP) [67] met Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield en die uitvoerende hoof van Ben & amp Jerry's gekontak nadat hulle verneem het dat roomys wat deur Ben & amp Jerry's franchise in Israel [68] verkoop is, verkoop word. in Israeliese nedersettings op die Wesbank en Oos -Jerusalem. Brosjure het plaasgevind op plekke in Vermont, New York en Kalifornië op 'Free Cone Day' in April 2013 [69] en April 2014. [70] Vanaf November 2014 [update] het 232 organisasies in die Verenigde State en in sewentien lande wêreldwyd 'n brief onderteken deur VTJP waarin 'n beroep op Ben & amp Jerry's gedoen word om sy kommersiële bande met sulke nedersettings te beëindig. [71]

Einde April 2014 het Ben & amp Jerry's aangesluit by die veldtog "Fight for the Reef", 'n vennootskap tussen die World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) -Australië en die Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS). Premier Campbell Newman en senator Matt Canavan, Queensland, het albei in verklarings gesê dat Ben & amp; Jerry's misleidende uitsprake maak wat die nadelige uitwerking wat voorgestelde regeringsprogramme op die Great Barrier Reef sou hê, [72] en Andrew Powell, minister van omgewingsake, gesê het dat " slegs mense wat 'n lepel uit die rif haal, is Ben en Jerry's en Unilever. As jy die feite verstaan, wil jy Ben en Jerry's boikot ". Die Australiese Ben & amp Jerry se handelsmerkbestuurder, Kalli Swaik, het geantwoord dat "Ben & amp Jerry's glo dat bagger en storting in wêrelderfeniswater rondom die mariene parkgebied nadelig sal wees vir die rif -ekologie. Dit bedreig die gesondheid van een van Australië se mees ikoniese skatte." [73]

In Februarie 2016 het Ben & amp; Jerry se medestigter, Ben Cohen, 'n roomysgeur genaamd "Bernie se verlange" geskep ter ondersteuning van die Amerikaanse senator Bernie Sanders se verkiesing tot president in die 2016 Democratic Primaries teen die minister van buitelandse sake, Hillary Clinton. Die geur bestaan ​​uit gewone kruisementroom bedek met 'n stewige laag muntsjokolade. Volgens Cohen, "Die sjokoladeskyf verteenwoordig die oorgrote meerderheid van die ekonomiese winste wat sedert die einde van die resessie tot die hoogste 1 persent gestyg het. Daaronder, die res van ons." [74] Dit is gedoen in 'n poging om die huidige sosio -ekonomiese kwessies van die Verenigde State ten toon te stel.

In April 2016 is Ben & amp Jerry se medestigters, Ben Cohen en Jerry Greenfield, albei gearresteer tydens die demokrasie -ontwaking op die Amerikaanse Capitol -stappe in Washington, DC [75]

In Mei 2017 kondig Ben en Jerry's aan dat hulle nie twee bolletjies met dieselfde roomysgeur in Australië sal bedien nie, weens die weiering van die Australiese regering om die huwelik van dieselfde geslag te wettig. Hulle het gesê dat dit 'aanhangers' sal aanmoedig om met hul parlementslede in verbinding te tree om hulle te vertel dat die tyd aangebreek het: maak huweliksgelykheid wettig! ' Hulle het gesê dat hierdie standpunt sou voortduur, hoe lank dit ook duur voordat 'n huwelik van dieselfde geslag gewettig is. [76]

In Junie 2018 kondig Ben & amp Jerry's hul steun aan vir die 9 000 Afghaanse asielsoekers se reg om in Swede te bly, en het hewige kritiek van sommige [ wie? ] kommentators. [77] [78]

Op 30 Oktober 2018 kondig hulle hul nuwe beperkte bondelgeur aan met die naam "Pecan Resist". [79] Dit is bekendgestel as deel van die opposisieveldtog teen president Donald Trump. Dit word bemark as ''n veldtog om onreg te lek en diegene wat veg om 'n meer regverdige en regverdige nasie van ons almal te skep'. [79] [80]

In Augustus 2019 produseer hulle nog 'n Bernie Sanders -geur genaamd "Bernie's Back." [81] Dit was nie te koop in winkels nie, maar is as 'n prys toegeken aan 40 wedstrydwenners. Ben Cohen onderskryf Bernie Sanders as president.

In 2020 het Ben & amp Jerry's aangekondig dat hy van plan is om deel te neem aan die veldtog "#StopHateForProfit", waardeur betaalde advertensies op Facebook en Instagram in die VSA stopgesit word. keer dat sy platform nie gebruik word om rassisme en haat te versprei en te versterk nie. " [82]

In Augustus 2020 het Ben & amp Jerry's kritiek uitgelok deur verskeie Britse kommentators en regeringsamptenare vir die verdediging van die kanaaloorgange van migrante uit Frankryk, wat begin het nadat 'n tweet aan die minister van binnelandse sake, Priti Patel, gestuur is waarin hulle gevra word vir hul behandeling as asielsoekers. [83] Boonop beweer die onderneming dat mense nie onwettig kan wees nie, selfs nie om ekonomiese redes in 'n land in te gaan nie, met die kruisings uit die ontwikkelde Eerste Wêreld -land Frankryk. Met hierdie twispunte wat deur sommige uitgespreek word. [84] Minister James Clever het ook kritiek op die stellings van die onderneming as statisties onakkuraat gekritiseer en beskryf dit as 'deugsaamheid'. [85] Spiked beskou die stellings as skynheilig as gevolg van die onderneming se eie praktyke met betrekking tot die regte en loon van werknemers. In die publikasie word ook beweer dat onwettige immigrante gehuur word waarin hulle na bewering met swak werksomstandighede, 12 tot 14 uur dae en 'n skaars minimum loon betaal sal word. [86]

In Januarie 2021 het Ben & amp Jerry's 'n tweet vrygestel waarin hy bedank, bedank en beroep op die 25ste wysiging teen die Amerikaanse president Donald Trump na die storm van die Verenigde State, en sê: "Gister was nie 'n protes nie - dit was 'n oproer om handhaaf wit oppergesag. ” [87]

Sosiale Edit

In Februarie 2012 het 'n Ben & amp Jerry's-franchise naby Harvard University 'n beperkte uitgawe van bevrore jogurtgeur met die naam "Taste the Lin-Sanity" geskep ter ere van die Asiatiese-Amerikaanse basketbalspeler Jeremy Lin, 'n oudstudent uit Harvard. By die aanvang bevat die produk vanielje -bevrore jogurt, werveling van lychee -heuning en stukkies koekies, wat lei tot 'n wyd gepubliseerde kontroversie oor rasse -stereotipering as gevolg van die assosiasie van die fortuinkoekie -bestanddeel met die Chinese kultuur. Laasgenoemde bestanddeel is later vervang met wafelkoekies, [88] namate die fortuinkoekies pap geword het en die franchise opbrengste van kliënte ontvang het. Ben & amp Jerry se hoofbestuurder vir Boston en Cambridge het aan die media verduidelik: "ons wou natuurlik niemand beledig nie en die meerderheid van die terugvoer daaroor was positief." [89] Ben & amp Jerry's het 'n amptelike verklaring uitgereik kort na die bekendstelling van die produk om verskoning te vra aan diegene wat aanstoot geneem het. [90]

In September 2014 het aktiviste teen ontroering kommer uitgespreek oor die roomysgeur "Hazed & amp Confused", wat vroeër dieselfde jaar vrygestel is. Die kommer was dat die naam beskou kan word as 'n verkleining van waas- en boelieprobleme. Die maatskappy het opgemerk dat die naam op die woord gebaseer is haselneut en 'n toneelstuk oor die frase "verdwaas en verward", wat beide 'n liedjie is wat deur Led Zeppelin gewild is en 'n film uit 1993. [91] Die besluit is in Oktober geneem om die geur nie te hernoem nie. [92]

Pogings deur trekarbeiders om die maatskappy Ben & amp Jerry se amptenare in Waterbury, Vermont, gedurende 2018 regstreeks te kontak, het gelei tot arrestasies deur immigrasie en doeane -handhawing. Volgens 'Lambert' van Migrant Justice voldoen die plase van 'Zero' aan die gedragskode van Milk With Dignity. [93]

Tydens die protesoptogte in 2020 teen rassevooroordeel ná die moord op die polisie op George Floyd, het Ben & Jerry's 'n verklaring bekend gemaak waarin Amerikaners aangemoedig word om 'blanke oppergesag af te breek' en 'die sondes van ons verlede' die hoof te bied. [94]

Produkveiligheid Redigeer

Die Organiese Verbruikersvereniging het in Julie 2017 aangekondig dat dit spore van die onkruiddoder glifosaat in 10 van 11 monsters van die ys van die onderneming gevind het. [95] Daar is bevind dat die spore op vlakke laer as die plafon was wat die Environmental Protection Agency bepaal het vir omgewingsbesmetting.


Dit begin met die mengsel

Tankwaens kom by die fasiliteit aan met kondensafgeroomde melk en room wat by die koöperasie geskei is. Die melk en room word getoets op bottervet en vaste stowwe en word ondergaan deur 'n mikrobiologiese ondersoek. Hulle word dan in ses tenks van 12.000 liter gelaai, waarvan drie vir room bedoel is en drie vir kondensmelk. Die bestanddele kan tot 72 uur in hierdie tenks bly totdat die plant gereed is om dit te gebruik, maar word gewoonlik baie vinniger omgedraai.

As 'n bondel gereed is om te berei, word die room en melk saam met ander nat bestanddele, soos vloeibare sukrose en hokvrye eiers, in mengtenks van vlekvrye staal opgeneem. Die plant kan 25 verskillende soorte mengsels maak, wat 'n gesofistikeerde resepbestuur vereis.

"Ben & amp Jerry se bondelproses word outomaties en beheer deur PLS's, wat pas opgegradeer is," sê Aiken. 'Die bottervet en vaste stowwe word getoets om seker te maak dat dit in spesifikasies is, en as dit uitval, kan ons werknemers aanpassings aanbring.'

Droë bestanddele, soos kakaopoeier, word in 'n aparte droë kamer verwerk met behulp van supersakke en grootmaat sakverdelers. Hierdie stelsel is ongeveer vier jaar gelede geïnstalleer, sodat plantwerkers nie voortdurend swaar sakke hoef op te lig nie.

Enige suiwelafval word versamel en teruggestuur na verskaffers se melkplase met metaangemakers. Die boere verander dan die afval in metaan, wat elektrisiteit opwek om hul bedrywighede aan te dryf. "Hierdie proses dra by tot die sirkulêre ekonomie wat die missiestelling van die onderneming ondersteun," sê Aiken.

Die proses help Ben & amp Jerry's ook om die hoeveelheid afvalwater wat dit na die stad stuur, te verminder. In 1994 gee die stad 'n klein permit vir biochemiese suurstof, slegs 1,500 pond per dag, en werknemers moes maniere vind om water te gebruik, behalwe vir skoonmaak.


Terwyl U Hier Is

  • Blaai deur ons fantastiese verskeidenheid Cabot -produkte en geniet baie ander spesiale spesies van Vermont.
  • Geniet ons keuse van Vermont -mikrobrouers, harde ciders en wyne van regoor Vermont en regoor die wêreld.
  • Koop ons indrukwekkende verskeidenheid vermontse kaas.
  • Besoek ons ​​bure en haal 'n paar heerlike Lake Champlain -sjokolade, geniet die pragtige Danforth Pewter -winkel en besoek die nuwe Smugglers ’ Notch Distillery -proelokaal!

Met soveel te sien en te doen, is Waterbury 'n gewilde toeristebestemming en die tuiste van sommige van Vermont se gewildste besienswaardighede. Terwyl u hier is, sal u dit geniet om die plekke te sien, die lekkernye te proe en die perfekte herinnering aan u reis te koop en 'n voorsmakie van Vermont saam te neem.

Word 'n Cabot Insider!

Kry die lekkerste resepte, die nuutste nuus, kennisgewings oor nuwe produkte en eksklusiewe promosies gerieflik in u inkassie.

Waar om te koop?

Cabot het jou gedek, vind jou gunsteling kaas in 'n winkel naby jou.

Resepte met die beste Cheddar ter wêreld


Gesoute karamel -snickerdoodle -proteïenbyte

Wel ouens, ek het die hele berig 'n rukkie terug geskryf en net uitgevind dat dit verwyder is. Hartseer. Maar ek onthou ek het geskryf oor my gunsteling -roomys (karamel met snickerdoodle -koekies ingedruk). Vandaar hierdie gesoute karamel -snickerdoodle -proteïenbyte.

En ten minste is hierdie gesoute karamelproteïenbyte reeds na die wenner gestuur en deur almal geniet?

Laat ons dus net kwyl oor die klein karamelstukkies terwyl ons hierdie bondel nuut maak! Omdat ons dit maar kan sien, kan u met enige gesoute karamel nie verkeerd gaan nie, en as u 'n proteïenbyt in die vorm sit, maak dit dit nog meer magies. fouteer … gesond? Ja, laat ons daarmee saamgaan!

Maar in alle erns moet u hierdie byt probeer. Hulle is so goed vir partytjies, gesonde versnaperinge vir kinders en volwassenes, ens. Konfyt vol smaak en proteïene en geen oond nodig nie!

Geen bak glutenvrye gesoute karamelproteïenbyte vir ALMAL nie !! Heck, bring hulle net na u volgende funksie en kyk hoe hulle aangeval word. Jy weet wat ek bedoel. Honger, dan hanger. Ons was almal daar. En as u meer sjokolade -proteïenbytgeure wil hê, kyk gerus na Vegetarian Mama's Chocolate Chip Protein Bites!

Die beste deel van hierdie glutenvrye gesoute karamel -snickerdoodle -proteïenbyte is dat u regtig enige proteïen kan gebruik. Of selfs grondboontjie-/hawermeel. Iets om die karamelstukkies en kaneel saam te hou.

For me, personally, I like a vanilla pea protein or a peanut flour because it brings out the caramel/cinnamon combo, adds an extra punch of gluten free protein, and is dairy free! Oh, and of course, oh so tasty!

That being said, I won’t leave you hanging (and drooling) any more, let’s make a HUGE batch and celebrate the whole salted caramel trend in a healthy no bake gluten free protein bite form…. mmm k?


Ben & Jerry’s Superfudge Brownies

In 1996’s In the Kitchen with Miss Piggy, Miss Piggy herself doesn’t cook (she’s far too glamorous for such a thing), so she has called upon her celebrity friends to contribute to the collection. Enter Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, better known as Ben and Jerry, who were kind enough to share their iconic recipe for Superfudge Brownies. Our slightly revised version adds espresso powder and milk chocolate chunks to appeal even more to chocolate lovers. Get the recipe for Ben & Jerry’s Superfudge Brownies here.


Watch This Mesmerizing Video Of Peppers Becoming Sriracha

If 2017 has you looking for a brief escape, this soothingly hypnotic video of peppers transforming into Sriracha is presies what the (condiment) doctor ordered. After all, who knew that the process for making our favorite tangy, spicy topping &mdash the one we slather on everything from eggs and avo to barbecued beef &mdashcould be so entrancing?! Referred to as "Rooster sauce" by those in-the-know, Sriracha's been around since the 80s, when David Tran, the mix's inventor, started selling his miraculous concoction to Asian restaurants across California after emigrating from Vietnam. Fast-forward to today, where Sriracha is produced in a 650,000 square-foot factory, grinding one hundred million pounds of red jalapeños, into brunch's go-to topping, per year (spoiler: Sriracha's peppers are only in season for four months, so never feel guilty about grabbing that extra emergency bottle for your stash). Watch the video above to see the mesmerizing way the universe's most coveted garlic-y, sweet sauce gets made. We swear we can smell the peppers from here.


The Truth About Ben and Jerry’s

Contrary to myth, the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to corporate giant Unilever wasn’t legally required.

  • deel
  • comment https://ssir.org/pdf/Fall_2012_The_Truth_About_Ben_and_Jerrys.pdf
  • print
  • order reprints
  • related stories

Though it occurred a dozen years ago, the sale of Ben & Jerry’s continues to haunt social entrepreneurs. The sale’s notoriety keeps growing, moreover, because of the central role it plays in current debates over the development and enactment of new US corporate forms—such as low-profit limited liability corporations (L3Cs), benefit corporations, and flexible purpose corporations—that attempt to embed a company’s social mission into its legal structure.

The story of Ben & Jerry’s is a legend in two acts. In Act One, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, two underachievers with counterculture values, open an ice cream store in a renovated gas station in South Burlington, Vt. The company, founded in 1978, becomes a social enterprise icon. It is fair to its employees, easy on the environment, and kind to its cows. The company pioneers the pursuit of business with a double bottom line—profits and people—that Cohen and Greenfield called the “double dip.” In its heyday (circa 1990), the company was a kind of corporate hippie, wearing its convictions on its labels with funky-named flavors like Cherry Garcia, Whirled Peace, and Wavy Gravy. Peace, love, and ice cream!

In Act Two, set in 2000, the mood sours. Ben & Jerry’s is sold (out) to Unilever, the world’s third-largest consumer goods company, described by one commentator as “a giant multinational clearly focused on the financial bottom line.” 1 News of the sale sends “shudders and shivers through the socially responsible business community.” 2 An all-too-brief and unexpectedly wonderful trip becomes a bummer. If Ben & Jerry’s was a kind of corporate Woodstock, this sale was its Altamont. (As a fitting coda, Unilever discontinued Wavy Gravy in 2003 because it wasn’t profitable enough.)

This article aims to dispel the idée fixe that corporate law compelled Ben & Jerry’s directors to accept Unilever’s rich offer, overwhelming Cohen and Greenfield’s dogged efforts to maintain the company’s social mission and independence. Contemporaneous observers concluded thus, such as the stock analyst who claimed in 2000 that “Ben & Jerry’s had a legal responsibility to consider the takeover bids. … That responsibility is what forced a sale.” 3 Cohen says the same thing—on a 2010 NPR radio segment on social enterprise, he said that “the laws required the board of directors of Ben & Jerry’s to take an offer, to sell the company despite the fact that they did not want to sell the company.” 4 Greenfield agrees: “We were a public company, and the board of directors’ primary responsibility is the interest of the shareholders. … It was nothing about Unilever we didn’t want to get bought by anybody.” 5

Corporate law has been fingered as the culprit in Ben & Jerry’s sale, which has become the poster child, proof text, and Exhibit A for the proposition that the traditional business corporation is fundamentally inhospitable, if not outright hostile, to social enterprise. Consider this passage from the summer 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review: “[A]mong social entrepreneurs, Unilever’s purchase of Ben & Jerry’s serves as a cautionary tale of how easily corporate fiat can undermine social responsibility. ‘The board was legally required to sell to the highest bidder,’ says [an attorney with expertise in social enterprise]. Neither Ben Cohen nor Jerry Greenfield wanted to sell the company, but because it was public they had no choice.” 6

If the corporate form is bad for social enterprise, social entrepreneurs should use more suitable alternatives. Proponents of new legal forms—such as L3Cs, benefit corporations, and flexible purpose corporations—invariably cite the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to show why such forms are necessary or attractive. (See “New Organizational Forms for Hybrids,” below.) For example, a legislative report on SB 201, California’s Flexible Purpose Corporation act, states that “The story of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream is an example of why a new entity form is sought.” It then repeats the now familiar story: “Even though Ben and Jerry did not want to sell out, they had little choice.” 7

Proponents of these forms claim they could have prevented the sale of Ben & Jerry’s, and prevent future such scenarios. After Vermont enacted its Benefit Corporation Act in 2011, one commentator asserted that “If Vermont’s law had been around 11 years ago, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield might not have had to sell their ice cream company. … [T]he laws of shareholder responsibility forced the hippie founders to sell, even though they wanted to keep control. Now, with today’s law, a new kind of corporation is created that prevents exactly that.” 8

Because the sale of Ben & Jerry’s is a critical fixture in debates over new legal forms, it’s essential to get it right. This article challenges the canonical account of that sale. It exposes the underlying assumptions about corporate law as erroneous: Corporate law does not require publicly traded corporations to maximize shareholder wealth. We describe the elaborate machinery that Ben & Jerry’s built to resist hostile takeovers and explain why these defenses, had they been invoked, would almost certainly have worked.

The Ben & Jerry’s sale does not make the legal argument for new forms. Rather, it is a lesson in how social entrepreneurs can use existing forms in creative ways to protect an enterprise’s social mission—even if they decide to forgo such protection in the end. (Of course, if the social entrepreneur remains the sole owner of the business, such protections aren’t even necessary.) The Ben & Jerry’s story contains other lessons for social entrepreneurs, including the impact of financial performance on mission and the idea that committed decision makers are the best security for mission sustainability.

From Humble Beginnings

When Cohen and Greenfield first started out, they were simply trying to earn a living. It was only when the business began to take off that they began the transition toward a progressive enterprise. Cohen was disappointed that Ben & Jerry’s was “just a business, like all others, [that] exploits its workers and the community.” 9 A friend, however, challenged him, pointing out that he could change whatever he didn’t like about the business. Over time, Cohen and Greenfield came to view their business as, in Cohen’s words, “an experiment to see if it was possible to use the tools of business to repair society.” At the end of each month, said Cohen, he and Greenfield would ask of themselves and the company: “How much have we improved the quality of life in the community? And how much profit is left over at the end of each month? If we haven’t contributed to both those objectives, we have failed.” 10 By their own expectations, and many others’, they were extraordinarily successful.

From the outset, Cohen and Greenfield were deeply committed to Vermont’s economy and environment. They relied heavily on local suppliers of milk to make their products. They hired a local artist to design their cartons and graphics. As the company’s need for capital increased, they resisted venture capitalist financing, which typically requires relinquishing significant control over the company. Instead, it sold stock to Vermont residents, thereby reinforcing the company’s local roots. In 1985 the company formalized its philanthropy by creating the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation. Cohen endowed it with $850,000 worth of his shares, and the company agreed to contribute 7.5 percent of its pretax profits.

For a while the company thrived, but in the early to mid-1990s, Ben & Jerry’s once-stellar financial performance began to lag, even as its other bottom line—social contributions—went from strength to strength. In 1994, the company’s annual report disclosed that sales growth slowed and it had suffered its first financial loss. By 1999 the stock had dropped nearly 50 percent from its peak, because of the company’s weaker financial performance. Some investors argued that the company’s social mission was a luxury it could no longer afford.

Ben & Jerry’s anemic stock performance attracted interest from prospective buyers who thought they could manage the company more profitably. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream tried to buy the company in 1998, but Ben & Jerry’s board refused. Other buyers were rumored to be interested when in early 2000, Cohen and a group of investors (including Body Shop founder Anita Roddick) offered to take the company private at $38 a share—about double the stock price of a few months earlier. 11 Dreyer’s made another bid, which in turn prompted Unilever to offer $43.60 a share. Although Unilever spoke about nurturing the social mission, many observers were skeptical.

Despite reported reluctance, Ben & Jerry’s board announced on April 11, 2000, that it had approved Unilever’s offer. (Melodramatically, some refer to this day as “4/11.”) The transaction, valued at $326 million, was finalized with overwhelming shareholder support. Cohen’s and Greenfield’s shares were worth close to $40 million and $10 million respectively. After more than 20 years as an independent enterprise, Ben & Jerry’s became a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever.

The deal, according to Ben & Jerry’s securities filings, contained some provisions intended to maintain the corporation’s social mission. Although Unilever controlled the financial and most operational aspects of Ben & Jerry’s, the subsidiary had its own independent board of directors to help provide leadership for the social mission and the brand’s integrity. The new board included Cohen and Greenfield, and its members, not Unilever, would appoint their successors. Moreover, this subsidiary board had the right to sue Unilever, at Unilever’s expense, for breaches of the merger agreement.

Unilever also promised to continue contributing pretax profits to charity, maintain corporate presence in Vermont for at least five years, and refrain from material layoffs for at least two years. Finally, Unilever agreed to contribute $5 million to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, award employee bonuses worth a total of $5 million, and dedicate $5 million to assist minority-owned and undercapitalized businesses.

Ben & Jerry’s today is described on Unilever’s website as a “wholly owned autonomous subsidiary of Unilever.” Although Ben & Jerry’s has clearly preserved some of its unique values, most observers are disappointed. Cohen and Greenfield too have reportedly “expressed concerns that the company has shifted away from its original mission of social responsibility.” 12 As was stated in a post on the Stanford Social Innovation Review’s blog, “[n]obody wants to end up like Ben & Jerry’s.” 13

The Legal Landscape

It is widely believed that corporate law forced Ben & Jerry’s directors to accept Unilever’s rich offer and sell the company. This perception reflects the erroneous view that corporate directors must always act to maximize shareholder value. The best and arguably only support for this view is from Dodge v. Ford, a 1919 decision from the Michigan Supreme Court. That court opined that a “business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.”

Dodge v. Ford is an anomaly, as other courts have not followed its view of shareholder primacy. In the blunt words of respected Cornell Law School corporate law professor Lynn Stout, “shareholder wealth maximization is not a modern legal principle.” 14 Other state courts have recognized this, including New Jersey’s Supreme Court, which stated that “modern conditions require that corporations acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the community within which they operate.” 15

Most state legislatures have resisted the tenets of Dodge v. Ford by enacting statutes that expressly authorize corporate directors to look beyond shareholder wealth maximization. Vermont enacted one, nicknamed “the Ben & Jerry’s law,” after the company had successfully lobbied Vermont’s legislature. Vermont’s “other constituency” statute, as these laws are called, is illustrative: It provides that when directors make decisions they may consider such matters as “the interests of the corporation’s employees, suppliers, creditors, and customers the economy of the state, region, and nation [and] community and societal considerations, including those of any community in which any offices or facilities of the corporation are located.” State statutes also give corporations wide latitude to donate profits to charities.

In practice, courts are deferential to board decision making. Under a doctrine called the business judgment rule, unless the directors have a conflict of interest, nearly all board business decisions are beyond judicial review. If there is a potential benefit to shareholders, the courts will not interfere. In this way board decisions advancing a social mission are effectively immune from challenge there’s no limit to the human mind’s ability to conceive of some benefit accruing to shareholders at some point, even if in the far-distant future. Absent special circumstances, a board’s decision to reject a proposed merger would easily survive a court challenge.

Was Corporate Law the Villain?

By the time Unilever approached Ben & Jerry’s in early 2000, the company was well defended. Its founders, lawyers, and lobbyists had taken many steps to prevent a hostile takeover. In addition to promoting Vermont’s enactment of an “other constituency” statute, the company had adopted a “poison pill.” A poison pill thwarts hostile acquisitions by making them prohibitively expensive. To cancel a poison pill, an acquirer must either find a friendly board or get one elected. Because elections for Ben & Jerry’s board were staggered, an acquirer would need at least two elections scheduled a year apart to elect the board of its choice.

In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, Unilever could not have elected a friendly board, as the two founders and another early employee, director Jeff Furman, effectively controlled enough votes to direct the election of board members. The company had two classes of common stock, one with 10 votes per share and the other with one vote, and between them they held three-quarters of the super-voting stock. (This capital structure was not unique to Ben & Jerry’s. The New York Times Co. and Google, for example, have issued super-voting stock to enable their heirs or founders to maintain control.)

Faced with an entrenched unfriendly board, a would-be acquirer might have gone to court claiming that corporate law required the board to redeem a poison pill. If the court chose to scrutinize the situation carefully, it would have examined whether the board’s failure to redeem a pill was reasonable in relation to the threat that Unilever posed to Ben & Jerry’s. The legal standard is murky, but there have not been many cases where courts have ordered a pill’s redemption.

Finally, Unilever might have asserted that Ben & Jerry’s was for sale and so the board was obliged to sell the company to the highest bidder. This was unlikely for two reasons. First, although Vermont courts have not been presented with this situation, most state courts that have considered it have rejected any such obligation. Second, even if the obligation might theoretically exist, this situation was unlikely to trigger it. Although it’s true that the board was considering a sale, it had not committed itself. If the matter were litigated, most courts would hold that there was no obligation to sell on grounds that neither the breakup nor sale of Ben & Jerry’s was inevitable.

Suppose, however, that a Vermont court had required the board to act to redeem its poison pill or enter into a merger agreement. Cohen and Greenfield still had one more card to play in order to preserve Ben & Jerry’s independence. A board’s decision to redeem a pill merely allows a tender offer to be submitted to shareholders for their approval. It does not mean the offer will succeed. If a majority of shareholders do not agree to tender their shares for sale, the attempted takeover fails. If they did not tender, they retained their stock and their control of the company.

Similarly, even if the board approves a merger, although it’s a legally binding obligation, shareholders must vote in favor of the merger before it becomes effective. Because of the principal stockholders’ ownership of super-voting stock, a hostile acquirer could not have gained voting control of the company or a merger finalized without their approval.

The crucial point is that even if Ben & Jerry’s directors had a fiduciary duty in their capacity as directors to accept or facilitate a transaction, they had no such duty in their capacity as shareholders, and as such were empowered to support or oppose the transaction as they saw fit. As shareholders, they were entitled to enjoy the benefits of selfish ownership, which ironically in this context could have been exercised altruistically to maintain the company’s social mission.

If the super-voting stock were somehow insufficient, Ben & Jerry’s had yet one more defense: an unusual class of preferred stock that held veto rights over mergers and tender offers. The Ben & Jerry’s Foundation owned all of this preferred stock. A takeover of Ben & Jerry’s thus required the foundation’s agreement, and two of the three directors of the foundation were the same principal stockholders. The foundation itself could not be taken over because its board members selected their own successors. In any event, the foundation’s directors were unlikely to be sued because the only party who could sue them was Vermont’s attorney general.

There is one complication in the analysis above. For reasons that are unclear, Ben & Jerry’s organizational documents granted the board the right to redeem the preferred and super-voting stock. It is an interesting question whether a court would ever find that a board’s fiduciary duties required the redemption of these securities in order to eliminate their voting rights. The board would, after all, owe fiduciary duties to the holders of super-voting stock, and a duty of good faith and fair dealing to holders of the preferred stock. Ben & Jerry’s own public statements support this analysis. The company’s securities filings disclosed that its capital structure would make it difficult for a third party to acquire control if the transaction were not supported by the principal stockholders or the foundation.

Nonetheless, this possible loophole shows only that Ben & Jerry’s didn’t get its defenses quite right, not that some flaw in corporate law required the sale. Shrewder lawyering would have made Ben & Jerry’s corporate independence even more unassailable. Corporate law permitted super-voting stock and the granting of a veto to a charitable foundation. Moreover, corporate law allows directors to reject an offer, at least where the directors have not irrevocably committed themselves to a sale.

Although Ben & Jerry’s legal defenses to a forced sale appeared impregnable, the board unanimously agreed to sell the company. Hoekom? Some cynically claim that the founders were ready to cash out. After all, Cohen and Greenfield grossed nearly $50 million from the sale. Moreover, Ben & Jerry’s faced some operational issues that a takeover could solve, such as product distribution. People close to the decision say they were motivated by fear of litigation, followed by a judgment that they would have to satisfy personally. If the directors were held personally liable—a remote possibility—Ben & Jerry’s charter included a provision that would have indemnified them.

Lessons for Social Entrepreneurs

This revised and richer account of Ben & Jerry’s sale offers valuable lessons for aspiring social entrepreneurs. The legal consequences of an entrepreneur’s choice of for-profit organizational form are likely to be smaller than often portrayed. Financial success is also essential to staying is control. Most important, the chief safeguard for maintaining the social mission is the people in control.

A hybrid legal form is neither necessary nor sufficient to maintain a social enterprise | Although the publicly traded corporate form can be challenging, many businesses employing it have pursued social missions with vigor and endurance. The list includes prominent firms such as The New York Times Company, Whole Foods, Starbucks, and the Body Shop (before it encountered operational problems unrelated to its form), and less well-known companies like EV Rentals and Interface Carpets. These firms use several strategies, legal and nonlegal, to ward off hostile takeovers. Foundations and super-voting stock are not uncommon. In some cases, new forms include provisions that could make an enterprise’s social mission harder to dislodge, yet such provisions are used by conventional for-profit corporations as well.

Financial success is critical to maintaining control | Ben & Jerry’s early financial successes enabled its founders to negotiate powerful control mechanisms from a position of strength. Ultimately the most important change at Ben & Jerry’s was not its directors’ legal ability to resist takeovers, which indeed increased over time. Rather, it was the declining health of the business itself. In its final years as an independent company, Ben & Jerry’s sales, financial performance, and stock price had stagnated, and the company faced various operational challenges.

Successful and promising companies are better positioned to take on new investors while retaining controlling positions for the founders. When Google went public in 2004, for example, with super-voting stock for the insiders, the company candidly admitted that public shareholders’ voting rights would have little impact on the company’s direction. Facebook’s 2012 initial public offering of stock allowed its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, to retain control through a combination of super-voting stock and contractual arrangements with other shareholders. (Interestingly, both companies also asserted that providing services, rather than making a profit, was their top priority.)

Although it is true that even successful companies are bought, it is also true that shareholders tend to back successful management. Put differently, takeovers often result from poor stock performance, which usually results from weak financial performance. Investment bankers commonly observe that the best defense is a high stock price. Had Ben & Jerry’s remained successful, its directors would have felt more comfortable rebuffing offers, as they had done several times before.

It’s the people! | Ben & Jerry’s defenses made the company virtually impregnable to hostile takeover. Yet in the end, Ben & Jerry’s directors chose to accept a generous offer, even at a cost to the social mission, rather than allow the company’s defenses to be tested. Anti-takeover protections are only as effective as the people positioned to use them.

Regardless of the for-profit organizational form in which a business is housed, people who exercise control over the company will usually be able to thwart its social mission. One oft-repeated objection to new forms is that they aren’t much more effective at screening out conventional for-profit people and businesses with conventional for-profit souls. So long as the organizational structure is adequate, it will be the decision makers who make the difference. The surest way to maintain a business’ social mission is to put committed people in charge. (Cohen and Greenfield attempted to achieve this by negotiating the creation of an independent and robust board for the post-acquisition subsidiary.)

When critics claim corporations are inherently pathological, they mean that they encourage antisocial decision making by their employees. Executives at hybrid forms likely feel less pressure to maximize profits at society’s expense. Yet the causation is uncertain: Does a virtuous form make directors more virtuous, or do the virtuous seek out businesses so formed?

Conclusions

Because new forms are being represented as correctives to the cause of Ben & Jerry’s sale, it’s critical to identify the true causes and manner of what happened. Hence the irony. The full account of that sale does not make the case for new forms rather, it illustrates how social entrepreneurs can use existing forms to protect an enterprise’s social mission—even if they choose not to assert such protections. Proponents of benefit corporations and the like should be pressed to identify real and unavoidable instances of the Ben & Jerry’s scenario, or stop using it to demonstrate the dire need for such forms.

Of course, even if new forms for social enterprises are not legally necessary, some structural innovations might prove useful nonetheless. A standard form, “off-the-rack” legal entity designed expressly for social enterprise would presumably save rising social entrepreneurs the trouble of (re)discovering tested solutions to its perennial challenges. A distinct legal form might also convey information and influence perception, for example, by assuring investors and potential investors that the company’s managers will not pursue profits über alles, and perhaps cultivating consumer loyalty to a social enterprise brand.

To date, a significant amount of resources has been devoted to developing social enterprise forms and lobbying states to enact them. As an exercise in political entrepreneurship, this strategy has produced results: Eight states have L3Cs, seven states have benefit corporations, and one has a flexible purpose corporation. It is an open question, however, whether this approach fosters more social innovation than would otherwise occur, or promotes it more effectively.

Social entrepreneurship might benefit from states competing to become the Delaware of an emerging “social enterprise law.” At the same time, fueling this competition yields diminishing returns. When a form has been enacted in one state, it is available to residents of every state. You don’t have to live or operate in Vermont to set up a Vermont L3C. What then is the point of pressing more states to enact the L3C, which is primarily intended to attract capital from relatively sophisticated investors—namely, grantmaking foundations?

We should remember that what really matters is not the organizational form but rather the formation and flourishing of social enterprises. It remains to be seen whether new forms will nurture new social enterprise icons or be an unhelpful (but tasty!) distraction. By moving beyond the received wisdom on the Ben & Jerry’s sale, we can better focus our energy on where it will do the most good.

Notas

1 Jill Bamburg, Getting to Scale: Growing Your Business Without Selling Out (San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 2006): 57.
2 Jeffrey Hollender and Stephen Fenichell, What Matters Most: How a Small Group of
Pioneers Is Teaching Social Responsibility to Big Business, and Why Big Business Is Listening

(New York: Basic Books, 2005): 211.
3 &ldquoBuyout Sweet Enough for Ben & Jerry&rsquos Founders Ability to Pursue Social Causes
Key Factor in Deal,&rdquo The Pantagraph, May 12, 2000.
4 April Dembosky, &ldquoProtecting Companies That Mix Profitability Values,&rdquo NPR Morning
Edition
, March 9, 2010.
5 Hannah Pool, &ldquoQuestion Time with Hannah Pool,&rdquo Die voog, July 31, 2008.
6 Jenna Lawrence, &ldquoMaking the B List,&rdquo Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2009.
7 SB 201, Analysis of Original Bill, https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/legis/11_12bills/sb201_
020811.pdf. The full passage cited reads: &ldquoIn 2000, Unilever made a buyout offer to the
company&rsquos shareholders. Even though Ben and Jerry did not want to sell out, they had
little choice. The board could not risk accepting a lower competing offer without exposing
itself to litigation from shareholders asserting their right to the highest possible
return at the expense of all other considerations&mdasha right upheld by many courts.&rdquo
8 Alex Goldmark, &ldquoThe Benefit Corporation: Can Business Be About More Than
Profit?&rdquo Good Business, July 1, 2011. http://www.good.is/post/the-national-march-ofthe-
benefit-corporation-continues-now-protecting-ben-and-jerry-s-backyard-fromfuture-
sellouts
9 Fred Lager, Ben & Jerry&rsquos: The Inside Scoop: How Two Real Guys Built a Business with a
Social Conscience and a Sense of Humor
(New York: Three Rivers Press, 1994): 57.
10 Ben Cohen, &ldquoOn Becoming an Ecopreneur,&rdquo The Green Festival Reader: Fresh Ideas
from Agents of Change
(Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008): 51.
11 Jim Steiker and Michael Golden, &ldquoHot Fudge Partners: Insiders Tell How Social Investors
Tried to (but Couldn&rsquot) Buy Ben & Jerry&rsquos,&rdquo Business Ethics, May/June 2000.
12 Jenna Lawrence, &ldquoMaking the B List.&rdquo
13 Kevin Jones, &ldquoSelling vs. Selling Out,&rdquo Stanford Social Innovation Review blog, Feb. 27,
2009. http://www.ssireview.org/opinion/entry/selling_vs_selling_out
14 Lynn Stout, &ldquoWhy We Should Stop Teaching Dodge v. Ford,&rdquo Virginia Law & Business
Review
3, 2008: 163.
15 A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953).

Antony Page is professor of law and Dean’s Fellow at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Before joining the law school, he worked in mergers and acquisitions, securities, and corporate finance at Sullivan & Cromwell’s London and Los Angeles offices.

Robert A. Katz is professor of law at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, with a joint appointment at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy. He is also president-elect of the Association of American Law Schools’ Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law Section.


Inhoud

In 1913, L. S. Heath, a school teacher, bought an existing confectionery shop in Robinson, Illinois as a likely business opportunity for his oldest sons, Bayard Heath and Everett Heath. There, in 1914, the brothers opened a combination candy store, ice cream parlor, and manufacturing operation.

With the success of the business, the elder Heath became interested in ice cream and opened a small dairy factory in 1915. His sons worked on expanding their confectionery business. At some point, they reportedly acquired a toffee recipe, via a traveling salesman, from a Greek confectioner in another part of the state. In 1928, they began marketing the toffee confection locally [2] as "Heath English Toffee", proclaiming it "America's Finest".

In 1931, Bayard and Everett were persuaded by their father to sell the confectionery and work at his dairy. They brought their candy-making equipment with them and established a retail business there. The Heaths came up with the marketing idea of including their toffee confection on the dairy products order form taken around by the Heath dairy trucks: customers could then order Heath bars to be delivered along with milk and cottage cheese.

Early ads promoted Heath as a virtual health bar – only the best milk chocolate and almonds, creamery butter, and "pure sugar cane". [ aanhaling nodig ] The motto at the bottom of one ad read "Heath for better health!" The motto was surrounded by illustrations of milk, cream, butter, cheese, and ice cream and in a corner – a Heath bar and a bottle of soda. [ aanhaling nodig ] The soda may have been Pepsi, as the Heath Co. bottled the drink for a number of years. [ aanhaling nodig ]

The Heath bar grew in national popularity during the Depression, despite its 1-ounce size and the 5-cent price, equal to larger bars. Made by hand until 1942, [3] the candy was manufactured consistently on a major commercial scale after the U.S. Army placed its first order of $175,000. The Heath bar had been found to have a very long shelf life: subsequently, the Army included it in soldiers' rations throughout World War II. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Popularity of the Heath bar grew after the war. However, the manufacturing process remained largely a hands-on, family-run operation: all four of L. S. Heath's sons, his two daughters, and several grandchildren were involved in the business. In the 1950s, the Heath Toffee Ice Cream Bar was developed, and eventually was franchised to other dairies.

In the 1960s, the huge national success of the Heath bar led to disagreements within the family, with at least one grandchild, Richard J. Heath, expelled from the business in 1969. He eventually published a book in 1995 entitled Bittersweet: The Story of the Heath Candy Co.

In the 1970s, the company bought the registered [4] trademark toffee ice cream flavoring formula called Butter Brickle from The Fenn Bros. Ice Cream and Candy Co. of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [5] [6]

In 1989, with the diminishing and splintering of the Heath family, the business was sold to a Finnish company, Leaf, Inc., which in turn was acquired by Hershey in 1996. Hershey had initially created the Skor bar to compete with the Heath bar, before it bought out Leaf, Inc.

Since acquiring the product, Hershey has elongated the bar to align with its competition. It now weighs 1.4 ounces. Current ingredients are milk chocolate, sugar, vegetable oil, dairy butter (milk), almonds, salt, and soy lecithin. The wrapper's vintage brown color scheme has a small seal proclaiming Heath the "Finest Quality English Toffee".

Following the 1973 use of the candy bar as an ice-cream "mix-in" by Steve's Ice Cream, [2] Heath bars became a significant ingredient in ice cream and other confections. [2]

According to Ray Broekel in his 1982 book The Great American Candy Bar Book, variations of the bar have included: Heath Milk Chocolate with Peanuts Heath Milk Chocolate Toffee Crunch Heath Milk Chocolate with Natural Cereal and Raisins and the Double Heath bar. In the 1980s, a Heath Toffee Ice Cream Sandwich appeared, along with Heath Soft 'n Crunchy—a soft-serve ice cream.

Currently, other varieties of Heath bar-based confections include: Archway Cookies' Heath Cookie Heath Bar Klondike bars Baskin-Robbins' Heath Bar Shake Dairy Queen's Heath Bar Blizzard and Heath Bar flavored varieties of ice cream with a coffee or vanilla ice cream base, [2] . Ben and Jerry's produced a Heath Bar Crunch ice cream, which was renamed Vanilla Toffee Bar Crunch in 2014 when the company stopped using actual branded Heath bars. [7]

Although the candy bar's original manufacturer, L. S. Heath, and subsequently Hershey have supported the incorporation of the candy bar into other confections by marketing a pre-shredded variety, many vendors hand-crumble the candy bars, finding the pre-crumbled variety to be "too small and too dusty". [2]


Brookie Unbaked is a no-bake take on the classic brookie combo, with
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough + Ultimate Brownie Batter Dippin' Dots!
Only available at Dippin' Dots store locations near you!

Get Reddi to wip up some fun with this cool Dippin' Dots + Reddi-wip popsicle recipe!

Colorful and full of fun flavors,
Rainbow Ice is the perfect treat on a sunny day!

Cookies, Rainbows
& Bananas. Oh My!

From classic Cookies 'n Cream to blissful Banana Split,
we have fun flavors for everyone to enjoy!

Join the Coolest
Club Around!

Join the Dot Crazy! email club today! You'll receive exclusive
news and deals in your inbox - not to mention
FREE Dippin' Dots on your birthday!

NEW Dippin' Dots Cereal!
Berry Heavenly Sundae
Watch Modern Marvels!
Dippin' Dots on Modern Marvels

Dippin' Dots was featured on a recent episode of The HISTORY Channel&rsquos &ldquoModern Marvels&rdquo television series.

In &ldquoModern Marvels,&rdquo Adam Richman travels the country to behemoth factory lines and locally owned shops going behind-the-scenes of iconic brands and giving an inside look into how some of America&rsquos favorite foods such as cookies, cheese, chocolate and ice cream are made.


What Does It Take to Hear Big Ben Again? 500 Workers and a Hiding Place.

The detailed restoration of England’s most famous clock and tower should be finished next year.

LONDON — Imagine being charged with taking apart what is arguably the best-known clock in the world and then restoring it to its original Victorian glory. All while keeping secret the location of much of the work for security reasons.

That has been the task of Ian G. Westworth, 58, a British Army veteran who retrained at the school of jewelry in Birmingham and later became a certified repairer and conservator of antique clocks.

He now is a clock mechanic for the Houses of Parliament, and one of the more than 500 artisans and workers restoring the Palace of Westminster’s Elizabeth Tower and its Great Clock, a yearslong project that has been hit with delays and rising costs. (Some people call the clock Big Ben, but Ben actually is the largest of the five bells in the tower and it tolls the hour. It last rang out at midnight on the final day of 2020.)

The clock was built by Edward John Dent after a design by Edmund Beckett Denison, a barrister. It was installed in April 1859 and started running a month later. The mechanism alone, made of cast iron, weighs five metric tons, and each of the four minute hands is nearly 14 feet long.

The renovation that began in 2017 isn’t the first time the Great Clock was stopped for repairs, but it has become its longest hiatus, delayed further by the pandemic.

Adding to the overall cost was the discovery of more damage from World War II bombs and more toxic materials like asbestos and lead paint than had been anticipated. Estimates for the entire project originally totaled 30 million pounds, or $41.6 million, but that number has risen over time to £79.7 million. A further audit, including a look at the pandemic’s impact, is expected later this month. And the work, which had been scheduled to end this year, now stretches into 2022.

The clock’s restoration has been intricate, and has included replacing the 1,296 pieces of shimmery, mouth-blown pot opal glass on its four dials, each about 23 feet in diameter. Multiple layers of black and dark green paint have been removed from the dials and stonework, using solvents and tiny brushes.

Mr. Westworth expanded on his initial email in a video interview from the clock team’s workshop at Westminster. (The conversation has been edited and condensed.)

How did you get involved with clock repairs?

I’ve always been interested in engineering — small engineering. And I’d always been interested in clocks and time. I’d been in the armed forces, done a little bit of aid work, lorry driving — all jobs that seem to take you away from home. I had a career change, so I decided to do a job that would allow me to go home practically every night.

What’s your role with the restoration?

As one of the clock makers at the palace, I’m part of a group of different teams, each specializing in its own area. Mine is the work on the Great Clock and its removal from the tower, restoration work on the movement and the planning and reinstallation back into the tower. Ek het voor hierdie een aan ander klokprojekte gewerk - byvoorbeeld Manchester Town Hall - maar niks so groot nie.

Waarom was dit nodig?

Die punt van die werk is om die klok en die toring vir toekomstige geslagte te beskerm. As hierdie werk nie uitgevoer word nie, bestaan ​​die risiko dat die klokmeganisme kan misluk en dat die strukturele integriteit van die toring in gevaar kan wees.

Daar is veral ander herstelwerk gedoen in 1976 toe metaalvermoeidheid veroorsaak dat 'n as misluk en die meganisme uitmekaar breek. Hoe verskil hierdie werk?

Onafhanklik van die toringprojek, het die klok self herstelwerk nodig gehad, en dit was die eerste keer dat ons die meeste daarvan kon doen. Baie word vereis op plekke waaraan ons nie kon werk nie, met die klok wat binne die toring loop. Dit is die heel eerste keer dat die horlosie uitmekaar gehaal word, en die eerste keer dat die dele waarskynlik die kamer verlaat.

Aan die begin van die herstel het ons stukke daarvan tot op die grondvlak gekantel, aangesien dit so swaar was en dit van die terrein verwyder vir 'n volledige opknapping. Ons kon elke stuk verf, skoonmaak, herstel en dokumenteer (daar is honderde). Die oorspronklike wikkelmeganisme wat in 1912 geïnstalleer is, word weer in plek gestel wanneer die Groot Klok huis toe kom.